PT147.S4.Q17 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author states that there’s no point debating the truth of the law of noncontradiction, since a productive debate would require some agreement among the participants on basic principles. But since those common principles would be even less certain than the law of noncontradiction, it would be impossible to defend the law of noncontradiction using those principles.

The conclusion is about the value of debating the law of noncontradiction: “It is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.” We know this is the conclusion because the rest of the statements are designed to show why the debate would be pointless.

The author concludes that it’s pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction. Why is it pointless? Because such a debate wouldn’t be productive. (A) accurately describes the conclusion.

This is a description of the law of noncontradiction. But this isn't the conclusion. The conclusion is that it is pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.

This is part of a premise that the author uses to support the claim that a debate would be pointless.

The author never claims that the law of noncontradiction is something that participants in a productive debate must hold in common.

The author never claims that "any" principle that could be used to defend the law of noncontradiction is less certain than the law of noncontradiction. But even if you think (E) sounds like something stated in the last sentence, it's still not the conclusion. The author uses the last sentence to support the claim that it's pointless to debate the truth of the law of noncontradiction.

PrepTest 147 - Section 4 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action